User talk:Raziel Reaper/Archive 1
Sorry for such a late welcome, little time, plus, I had to blow some dust off of this ancient template first. ;) See you around! --TheBearPaw 17:16, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Replacing images Hi, when replacing images on the wiki mostly for the taste value, generally it is advisable to first suggest the new image on the article's talk page to see if other editors would approve the change, unless the replaceable image is really inferior, of course. In the case of the new Dragunov pic you added, that image is of better resolution, but the watermarks it contains are never acceptable (especially if there are alternative pics without them available), so I undid that addition. In any case, either pic is not perfect anyway, as Max Payne shooting with the Dragunov is not canon as he never gets the weapon in MP2. The same necessity of consultation would go with the pump-action shotgun pic. Even though the resolution of the new image is greater, it actually looks smaller in the infobox, is kind of darker and difficult to make out and seems to be unnaturally overstretched in width. --TheBearPaw 15:16, December 3, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, the Dragonov-MP2-Mona2.jpg looks good, the full weapon is shown there, which do you like? ;)--TheBearPaw 03:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::A'ight, I put that one in the box, then. Next time place the suggested images on the talk pages of articles so that other editors could offer their opinions (even if there aren't many active users here still). --TheBearPaw 18:07, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, sure, the whole weapon is seen perfectly. You can put it up there in the infobox. --TheBearPaw 23:06, December 4, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, same goes with the Striker, looks good, clearer than the Max holding the gun pic. Any other type of similar gun pics like these two you can go ahead and put in the box without consulting me, as they look clearly superior. At the same time, save any replaced pics worth saving to the gallery, as I saw you do with the Dragunov, correctly done. The best infobox pictures are, I think, those of, e.g., Sawed-Off Shotgun or Molotov Cocktail; I have no idea where the user that uploaded them got them from, though. --TheBearPaw 20:10, December 5, 2011 (UTC) IM SO FUCKING ANGRY!!! wikia has gone too far this time and you and me are gonna fuck em up!! im no longer editing any wikia, but its better to burn out than fade away. ´Down2Business • Talk 14:20, December 5, 2011 (UTC) In-universe style discussion Hi again, we, the wiki community, have to accept a definite written style guideline to know how to exactly write and construct the articles here. I started a forum thread where I try to propose the first policies, and you are invited to express your opinion about them there. As one of the proposed guidelines deals with writing articles using the in-universe style, I undid your Max Payne intro change which was non-universe-styled. Until the mentioned forum discussion ends, we should maintain the status-quo of the articles for now in the style they were originally written, as neither style is set in stone right now as the preferred guideline. Plus, the games Payne appears in and him being a protagonist are already mentioned below in the article. --TheBearPaw 02:25, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Max Payne (character) gallery I undid the gallery change due to multiple issues: *Do not remove sentences, pictures, pretty much any good-faith entry into the wiki without explanation in the edit summary. You did this with some of the gallery picture captions. *If you intend to do a major overhaul of any page, it would be wise to first suggest the change on the article's talk page first to see how others would react. Especially in this case when you change the whole gallery on such a high-traffic and high-profile page such as Max Payne (character), as many editors have contributed to it and the current edition has withstood a certain test of time. *Pictures that are already used in the article should not be used again in the gallery. *You added some pretty low-quality grainy images of Max Payne 2: Max Payne 2 Screenshot 15.jpg & Max Payne 2 Screenshot 16.jpg. In my opinion, they are too poor to be there. *You new alignment displayed portrait and landscape pictures all together and it automatically diminished their size in the gallery and distorted the tidy placing. I understand these nitpicks I give to your new additions can be frustrating, but that's the nature of wiki cooperation - we have to learn to co-exist under one roof. ;) And so, if you want to discuss any of these Max Payne article gallery change points I mentioned, post your opinion on that talk page. --TheBearPaw 02:25, December 6, 2011 (UTC) i gotta start taking wagers. "how long before thebearpaw drives another editor insane?" XD ´Down2Business • Talk 14:06, December 8, 2011 (UTC) Userbox Be advised that normally editing other users' userpages is considered an impolite behaviour and frowned upon on wikis. But, in this case, it being a present, we can be light-hearted about it. I find the userbox quite humorous, I like it, I think I'll keep it, thank you. ;) --TheBearPaw 11:31, December 21, 2011 (UTC) In-universe style Hi, Ilan, thank you for voting on the written style guidelines poll. You voted against the in-universe style writing proposition, however, you have not explained the reason why. Do tell which points of that guideline you don't like so that we could change it and probably find a common ground that would suit the majority of editors, which, in this case, seems to only be us both, ;) I noticed the style you prefer to use on character articles in introductions, which goes something as: The name is a character in game title. I will try to give you my view of why I think such pattern is not perfect: *Firstly, I think, stating that someone, for example, Mona Sax, is a character is obvious and quite unnecessary, don't you think? What else could she be, a weapon, ammo type? ;) I think by stating the character's role, occupation in the games, in their universe, we provide the definition the reader wants to know more accurately. Wikipedia doesn't define, e.g., Steven Spielberg, as a human being first, that is obvious, it just starts with his profession: a director. Plus, the perfect introduction should be a short summary of the described object, to provide a quick overview for the reader, and, if he wants, he can read the sections he is interested in. One-sentence leads are not enough. *The other part is the mentioning of the appearances in the lead section. I prefer to have them situated in a separate section at the very end of the article because, I think, this way we can preserve the immersiveness for the reader as he is reading the in-universe articles and would want to know details and story about the object seamlessly encompassing all the games, without distractions where and what is featured. What we could do to preserve the one-glance-quick-info-of-appearances, and I think it would be great to have it, is to get a template that would feature little logos of games/the movie that would appear at the top right corner of each article's beginning, as seen, for example in the Fallout wiki here, here, or here. Or it would display, smth like a world globe symbol, to insta-tell that, e.g. "Sam Lake" is an article in the real-world and not a character in the games, as Wookieepedia uses, for instance here. This way, with those logos, the reader would be informed right away of what game is this described thing a part of, as you want to, without the old monotonous written line. It would seem to be a compromise to our opinions. Whatd'ya say? A few other quick examples of how an "in-universe style" written article would appear, to give you a better impression: 1, 2, 3. I think having this style would really benefit our wiki here and make ir prettier (or at least first enable it to be done) ;) --TheBearPaw 00:15, January 3, 2012 (UTC) :Please don't think I'm laughing at your position, I truly respect and understand it. However, I want to try to convince you to see why I think my option is a bit better and would benefit this wiki more. My counter-points to your arguments: :*I really welcome your will to have a clear and uniform definition for the described object first. That is a great, integral and vital part of any encyclopedia. With the in-universe writing, on the other hand, it all would still remain intact, "the readers could know about what is talked about", as you say, very much so still: weapons would still be defined as weapons, ammo as ammo, only the characters would be defined by their in-universe occupation or role and they could be easily differentiated from, say, game developers, by my previously mentioned real-world article tag: the world globe logo. :*Analysing your preferred style a bit, you start with the non-universe intro, then continue with "Background" which is written in-universe and then follow with "Trivia" or "Notes" or "Behind the scenes" sections which are once again non-universe or a mish-mash of both, it makes for a rather chaotic set-up with the reader constantly thrown from one side to the other. We need a tidier, well-defined layout, which, in my proposed style, would be enabled. All the non-universe info would follow after the "Behind the scenes", we would a have fine, well-known line drawn in the sand. :*We should not necessarily follow what other R* wikis are doing, this wiki has no innate relation to them or to the Rockstar Games company, those are just as any other wikis. :*Wookieepedia or "Dues Ex" or "Fallout" wikis' examples, to the contrary, are really applicable here, because they are the most developed and worked-out ones. Whose example should we attempt to follow?: The majority's, the most underdeveloped wikis or those that are the best managed, successful, and oldest. Taking examples from Wookieepedia or the technical side of Wikipedia in this instance is entirely legitimate and even encouraged. The size of our wiki right now is absolutely not important, we could be covering just one game, or one 10-page comic book, it's not the quantity, but quality question we are trying to solve here and these established wikis have both the page numbers in their baggage and the quality regulations set up. And so, in the question of "who should we (The Max Payne Wiki) try to grow up to be?", I think my vision of a "Wookieepedia-style" (not size, we will never reach its size) wiki trumps over your other Rockstar wiki choices. What are your thoughts about these suggestions I laid out? About the welcome bot. Yes, I set up a welcome bot for the anonymous users which posts a special message to them. For the registered users, however, I have so far opted to do it manually because this way I can add a personalized sentence or two after the message, if I want to, for a little bit more neatness or choose to not post a welcome at all if their edit makes me frown ;). If there were many more users incoming and I was so worked up I could not notice them all, sure, I would enable the bot. --TheBearPaw 16:07, January 3, 2012 (UTC) ::Allright, continuing from where we left. No, I did not check your style on the other wikis, the one I dubbed here as yours was just generally my quick impression of an article you would like to see based on a few article intro/other changes you made. ::The section heads you listed for me are actually a question of standard article layouts and not the overall written style that the policy tries to establish. They are a somewhat different question, although tied to this policy. But we can only establish the standard form of them after the wiki has a clear-cut article writing strategy which I am trying to set up. ::I have checked out the Rockstar games wikis you mentioned and, yes, I found them good, big, and full of well compiled information, but the very aesthetics of presentation - the mixing of the in-game-universe world information with the facts that are from our own real world - were the things that did not appeal to me. I would like to have a norm where the in-universe info has the priority and comes first. If an article is about a game universe subject, all those known fictional facts should be stated first and then we put the "Behind the scenes" section where all the notes, trivia, allusions, homages, inspirations, development history goes. I really love the non-universe information and think it is highly important, but I'd simply prefer it to take the back seat. ::Since we could replace the "featured in game" part you like in the intro with the game logos on top-right and, of course there would always be the "Appearances" section at the end of the article, so since we could do that and I would like that myself, we have a compromise here on this part, right? ::If I am right, our argument right now boils down to basically only the use of one word. The stating that a character is a character. It still is too obvious. I think that is just something Wikipedia would write: "Max Payne is a fictional character of the Max Payne games", but we should take advantage of the fact that we are a fan wiki going in-extreme-depth into the universe and enjoy the immersion, as if we lived in the Max Payne world and, like journalists, if you may, or scholars, were chronicling the life of Max and those associated with him. Of course, the non-universe articles, such as about games, game chapters, creators, game companies, are not touched by any of this. So do you really think stating that someone is a character in the intro (the obvious in my opinion) is that important? :: If we do not pass some written style strategy policy, the wiki is in danger of chaos because no style is authorized, anyone could write in any way and be right as there are no set-up rules against it. One article would be written in one style, and one in the other and we would have to respect both authors, that would just be very counterproductive I think. --TheBearPaw 22:29, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :::Hi again, Ilan, that's a nice navbox of Max Payne characters you made. ;) I noticed you now seem to use the in-universe writing too, e.g. here or here. So, should we adapt the policy then? --TheBearPaw 02:57, January 22, 2012 (UTC) Max Payne 3 Hi, Ilan, I didn't know you were a fan of Max Payne. I've never played it before, but I'm really looking forward to MP3. It's from Rockstar Games, gotta have it! Cheers, Leafsfanatic22 ''Talk'' 03:20, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I will get MP3 as soon as it comes out! I'll be 17 in March, in Canada you have to be 17 to buy games that are rated M. My problem is that I'm sort of out of thrid person/open world games right now. Finished GTA IV, EFLC, Red Dead, Undead Nightmare, L.A. Noire, and Mafia II and all it's DLC. So I'm sorta bored right now. Leafsfanatic22 ''Talk'' 02:48, January 16, 2012 (UTC) Oh, good, my birthday's on march 5. Does it come out in Israel on the 7th? Leafsfanatic22 ''Talk'' 02:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Re:1000 Hah, thanks. ;) By the way, I noticed the spoiler tags you put on some articles. I think they are somewhat unnecessary. Basically any page has spoilers for those who have not played the first two games, so that template would just be on every page and just take up space. We should probably just put one prominent spoiler warning on the main page saying that the wiki is full of spoilers. On the other hand, a spoiler tag for Max Payne 3 plot details would work when the game comes out. That info would all be new then. Whatd'ya think? --TheBearPaw 16:53, January 29, 2012 (UTC) :Quote? Hah, I don't know, "I ain't a cop no more" by Max or "This is São Paulo, bother" from the trailer could signify the setting is in Max Payne 3. Or even "Stay in your office, lock yourself in" from the Design and Technology Nr. 2., as in to hide form spoilers. Or pick anything yourself. ;) --TheBearPaw 17:48, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Re:"Upcoming" Template Hey, hah, nice one. Just instead of "related to the Max Payne storyline" it should probably more specifically link to and say "related to the Max Payne 3 storyline". And, after Max Payne 3 comes out, the template can be changed to an MP3 spoiler warning to be kept some time while the game is new. --TheBearPaw 20:46, February 1, 2012 (UTC)